Printable View
I'd like to know how I will know that the watch I buy that is described as an ARF 904L steel....is really 904L. It sounds ridiculous. I'm certain that if I saw a hang tag or clear plastic circle on the crystal stating it is 904L , I will feel much better about it....
Signed ,
Gullibles Travels
Great question!
So how were you able to tell that the previous steel was indeed 316L, or that when the TDs claimed that gold plating was at 5 or 10 microns that that was accurate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't and that is simply my point. When I buy a replica..I know it's, a replica. I don't expect a $10,000 watch in the mail wrapped in Saran wrap. It has inferior metal gears and other parts made as cheaply as possible, it is assembled quickly in places that have no QC and are not always as clean and dust free as the Swiss factories they purport to be.... It is marketed and sold at a ridiculous markup with marketing that says it is from this factory and that factory that absolutely no one will ever know where that factory is or if it exists. Saying SAPPHIRE when it is Mineral (artificial Sapphire), talking of CLONED movements. Not guaranteed for any amount of time or wear. It probably has not even been correctly lubricated and with all of that in mind, it still might run as well and sometimes better than my gens, for a good amount of time....BUT..It will never be a gen, no matter what steel, how thick the Gold plating, what parts, what movement. No matter how it's modded or Frankened or what the seller has to say, it will always be just a replica , inferior to the genuine article that it is representing.No one is putting an ETA Gen Swiss movement in a $300. replica. The movement itself costs more.. If one knows these things, why would they expect to have 904L steel that cost Rolex (They are the only user) millions to tool up and produce, in a watch that is made for $50. USD at most. If you truly believe it is from a specific factory and made especially as you ordered it, 904L and gen ETA, Sapphire crystal, etc. you deserve whatever you get in the mail...
An ARF 904L was tested at an independent lab by a member who bought the watch. It is indeed 904L. Is it the exact same 904L Rolex uses? Probably not (if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you) but it does pass for 904L, alloy composition-wise.
I'm still very skeptical of these watches. It cost Rolex a ton to tool up for 904L ..Why does anyone believe that a REP factory would have that ability ? Too weird and not at all believable to me. It's the perfect promotional item because nobody will spend the money to test it.
Ok, hold up... you’re saying that these “$300” watches are being sold at a ridiculous markup yet I’m supposed to believe that an identical gen selling at $7500 is a value? Who’s screwing who when it comes to profit margins, my friend? Do you see Z Factory sponsoring Formula One races or sailing competitions? No. You know why? Because they aren’t screwing gullible rich people out of their money. The gen manufacturers are! How much “ridiculous markup” do you really think there is in a $300 watch, anyways? Do the math. Your numbers don’t add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJerome
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not true. As Mysterio pointed out, a 904L rep has already been tested and it tested positive for 904L.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJerome
Oh, and it’s not like they’re charging thousands more for it anyways. These Chinese factories aren’t bending over their customers like Rolex does. When my wife bought my GMT Master II in 2004 it cost around $4500. Now it costs around $9000! Why? Because they can, that’s why.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read the testing results and I am still skeptical. I had heard from the forum metal experts that different equipment was needed to work the 904 and that it would be cost prohibitive for the rep factories. Apparently, the experts were wrong. I’ll see if I can find a link to the testing. It was on RWI.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJerome
Then your particular situation can't be helped. You can't tell if something is 904L but you won't believe that tests that had been done independently by someone else proved that the material used for the watch in indeed 904L steel. I think there was a thread which compared the 316L steel watch to the 904L steel watch to show the slight difference in appearance. But maybe you won't believe even that. As you stated in your opening post, just ask your TD to scrawl "Genuwine Polex 904" on a piece of paper, like you said maybe you'll feel better about the purchase. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PJerome
Well if you can't believe a metallurgical testing lab (which AFAIK are also metal experts), who can you believe? It may be different equipment, but unless we work for Rolex and we know exactly how much these unicorn frappucino 904L metal processing equipment cost them compared to 316L equipment, it could be all marketing fluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker
Preach, brutha! Rolex pulled the “our processes are sooo expensive” shenanigans with their ceramic bezels too, yet the Chinese were able to duplicate them without fiscal fanfare. #thingsthatmakeyougohmmm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good point. The best part is that, at $9000, they are even more desirable cause they are even harder to get! Hahahahaha, I'm loving this!Quote:
Originally Posted by Circarama
That my friend, is successful marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximax
Quote:
Originally Posted by capre
That's exactly why Rolex is the best :)
Ultimately, I really don’t give a rat’s behind if it’s 904 or 316 as long as it looks good. Afterall, it is a replica.Quote:
Originally Posted by mysterio
Sure, I can understand that. Well, some give's a buffalo's behind about it. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker
The movements are made by movement manufacturers like Seagull. Seagull's business model is not to tool up and build junk. They do not supply junk to rep manufacturers, they are huge accounts/buyers that make gen watches and parts also.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJerome
The clone ETA movements are not junk and are not inferior. The only movements that are unreliable are the ones that have unreliable modifications such as sec@12, sec@6, bicompax, etc.. that were added on after the fact. These ETA designs are old as hell. As far as gen ETA, they used to put Swiss ETA in reps 10 years ago, now no way. The standard layout 7750 is stable, the rep hands tubes being made of soft metal are the biggest problem to face.
Sapphire crystals are Sapphire. Professional lab made crystal suppliers sell to gen/rep the entire watch industry. Diamond testers do not lie. Clarity/quality/grade varies sure, but the optics are incredible and certainly not junk. It is cheaper for them to buy sapphire from the sapphire crystal makers then open a factory to produce inferior crystals. It is cheaper to have them AR coated at the AR lab that does this all day everyday then try to reinvent the wheel.
I took a cutter/polisher to 904, 316, etc.. Its steel. Its hard. Rolex sells dreams and high fantasy and yes incredible products, but 904 came about when people were starting to say "hey WTF its a steel watch why is it $5000" so Rolex gets a beautiful ad campaign going, adds and removes a little molybendum, nickle, whatever and now you have "superior ROLEX steel". My cutting and polishing wheels know no difference, nor do the CNC and engraving, polishing, and all other machines used to make these watches. Maybe they go through a few extra bits, but its a small price for say, ARF to produce watches that they cannot keep on the shelves.
The reps are assembled very well. Have you... Purchased a rep in the past 5-6 years? Have you held or owned say, the ARF Sea-Dweller? These watches are hard to fault out of the box now. The biggest problem with reps are the lack of parts support which ironically happens to be the same problem with their Swiss counterparts. Swiss companies make money by holding a monopoly on service/repair via parts and charging you outlandish prices. Rep companies insure you will purchase another $350 watch when one tiny little screw go's missing, rather than sell you the $2 screw. Don't get me wrong here... You're getting screwed one way or another, just not exactly the way you think you are. :D
I just wanted to add something to this, something it seems that everyone has either missed when researching this, or just never knew. 904l is not a new type of stainless steel, nor is it proprietary to Rolex. Rolex has used 904l since 1985 on Sea Dwellers, and expanded that to all watches recently (and changed the name to "Oystersteel"). They also created Rolesium, a blend of 904l and Platinum, and Cerachrom for the bezels. Quite a few high-end luxury brands have created "proprietary" metals for their watches, Omega created Liquidmetal, Hublot made Cermet and Hublonium, Linde Werdelin made "ALW", and even Seiko created a couple proprietary metals; however, 904l is not proprietary to Rolex, they didn't invent it, they just slapped a "pretty sounding" name on it, and anyone can make a watch from it.
904l is mostly used by companies making steel tubing that needs to be corrosion resistant. That's the primary reason Rolex started using it in watches that would be exposed to sea water more often (not that most Rolex watches get exposed to sea water for a long time period lol). It's also used in heat exchangers and other industrial applications. It wasn't invented by Rolex.
316l stainless is also used in marine applications, as it's more corrosion resistant than the more affordable, and more common 304 stainless. 316 is a good steel for watches, 904 is just a little more corrosion resistant, and has a little higher nickel content, so it scratches a little less. It's not necessarily a "harder" steel, but the added nickel content makes it a little more difficult to machine, but not impossible, and considering that they (the rep factories) can probably re-tool a lot cheaper than other places can, it's not that big a deal for them. Think about it, Rolex produces a million watches a year...that's a lot of cutting metal!!! These rep manufacturers aren't making anywhere near those kinds of numbers of watches, so it's perfectly conceivable that these rep factories can produce rep watches out of 904 without having to spend a ton of money to re-tool.
If you still want to believe that it's BS, that rep watches are all made of 316 (or 304, why not, it's cheaper right), that sapphire crystals are really mineral crystals, that ceramic bezels are just plastic, etc, then go ahead. I, for one, do not see any reason not to believe the tests that have been done that prove it's 904l. I've been wearing one of these watches for 3 months, and it barely even has a scratch on it. But believe what you will, and buy what you want, it's your money...
It's not true that 904L less scratch! It's also not harder than 316L.
There are also variants on 904 Steel.
But in fact u are right about everything else.
Another hobby of mine is knives. I know with the steels used, there is a direct trade off between edge retention, durability/hardness, and the steels ability to withstand the elements and not tarnish. Harder steels in the knife world tend to have higher carbon content. High carbon tool steel used for tools, ball bearings and such while harder, are more prone to corrosion. So a corrosion resistant formulated steel such as 904L should perhaps be softer and scratch even easier than 316. My 904L sea dweller has accumulated just as many desk dives as any other Rolex bracelet I've worn. I do appreciate knowing it's likely to hold up well if worn in the ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal
In a few years Rolex will start using a new stainless steel and claim it is better than 904L Stainless Steel and charge more for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by P4GTR
Thanks, I actually said it wasn't harder than 316l, but I do feel it scratches a little less for some reason. I realize I could be wrong, I'm just going off of one watch I have vs others I've owned/own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal
Maybe (probably lol) I've just been lucky with this particular watch, or maybe I've been more careful (doubtful, there are plenty of "ding" episodes where I swear, and then check the watch) but nothing really seems to phase it for some reason. Of course there are a couple small scratches, but after daily wear for going on 4 months, I'd expect a lot more, I pretty much bought it as a daily wear "beater" watch (although I hate that phrase, I do try to keep my things nice, and I don't beat on them), but having seen "real" daily wear Rolexes, and seeing the scratches they get, I figured it's just part of wearing a watch.
Knives are a hobby of mine too. I tend to prefer non-stainless knives for their higher carbon content and relative ease of sharpening. If I had to choose from "stainless" knife steels though, 154cm is a pretty good, affordable steel, and I also like SV30/35 for the edge retention. Some of the "tool steels" like O2/D2 are cool, but a ***** to maintain the edge on, and you still need to worry about the elements...they're tough as nails though!!!Quote:
Another hobby of mine is knives. I know with the steels used, there is a direct trade off between edge retention, durability/hardness, and the steels ability to withstand the elements and not tarnish. Harder steels in the knife world tend to have higher carbon content. High carbon tool steel used for tools, ball bearings and such while harder, are more prone to corrosion. So a corrosion resistant formulated steel such as 904L should perhaps be softer and scratch even easier than 316. My 904L sea dweller has accumulated just as many desk dives as any other Rolex bracelet I've worn. I do appreciate knowing it's likely to hold up well if worn in the ocean.
Yeah, so much for exquisite Swiss space-age technology. They are the ones who are masters of marketing babble, not rep factories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circarama
Veblen goods at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximax